Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Taylor v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See, e.g., Taylor v. State, 616 N.E.2d 748, 749 (Ind.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. Stategreen2 sentences1994See Hill, 615 N.E.2d at 97 ; Price v. State (1992), Ind., 591 N.E.2d 1027 ; Hurt, 570 N.E.2d at 18. 1994See Hill, 615 N.E.2d at 97 ; Price v. State (1992), Ind., 591 N.E.2d 1027 ; Hurt, 570 N.E.2d at 18. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harper v. State
green
2 sentences2019Id. 2013Id. | 2 | 2013–2019 |
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Randolph v. State
green
1 sentence2003Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Powell v. State
green
2 sentences1996NOTES [1] For example, in Powell v. State, 644 N.E.2d 855 (Ind. 1994), our supreme court determined that a court commits fundamental error if it sends evidence to the jury over a defendant's objection after deliberations have begun, because such violates the defendant's substantial right to be present when the jury interrupts its deliberations to review evidence. 1996For example, in Powell v. State, 644 N.E.2d 855 (Ind.1994), our supreme court determined that a court commits fundamental error if it sends evidence to the jury over a defendant’s objection after deliberations have begun, because such violates the defendant’s substantial right to be present when the jury interrupts its deliberations to review evidence. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Greer v. State
green
1 sentence1995Id. (defendant must have intended to kill the victim). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Price v. State
green
2 sentences1994See Hill, 615 N.E.2d at 97 ; Price v. State (1992), Ind., 591 N.E.2d 1027 ; Hurt, 570 N.E.2d at 18. 1994See Hill, 615 N.E.2d at 97 ; Price v. State (1992), Ind., 591 N.E.2d 1027 ; Hurt, 570 N.E.2d at 18. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Brooks v. State
green
1 sentence1994He also cites Brooks v. State (1988), Ind., 526 N.E.2d 1171 for the proposition that the trial court commits fundamental error if it amends a charge on its own motion or initiates additional charges. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.